Oreshnik.... unstoppable missile?

Quit trying to move the goalposts.
I read through this thread and nothing Mushroom said is wrong. The Patriot is a (relatively) short-range anti-aircraft system that can deal with aircraft and cruise missiles and short-range ballistic missiles.

Regarding the OP, I stopped reading when I got to "Scott Ritter was one of 3 people that understood the Oreshnik missile". I knew where that was going, which was waaaay down the propaganda hole.

Mushroom is also right when he said that missile makes no real sense to use in Ukraine. The MIRVs had no explosives on them, it was just the kinetic energy of the inert warhead. It was just a demonstration, and an implied threat from Putin that he could still escalate further.

That missile is designed to carry a nuclear payload, and launching one against the US or NATO would be an extremely stupid thing to do, for the reason stated- there is no way for us to know it's not a nuke.

Our ABM systems can handle that kind of missile without much stress and we have demonstrated that with Standard Missile and THAAD and GBI. (We could use more of all of those)

Mushroom- I like the idea of AESA ashore in the CONUS.

Hypersonics- For many years in aerospace, when we referred to hypersonics, we were talking about air-breathing Mach 5+. Everyone already knows it's easy to get hypersonic speeds with rocket motors.

That means SCRAMJET motors, which are notoriously hard to keep lit but we and others are working on them. That is sustained atmospheric flight at hypersonic speeds, and those vehicles can be maneuverable.

There is another hypersonic that has some maneuverability, and that is boost-glide. That is launched into space on a rocket, with a gliding maneuverable re-entry vehicle. China has demonstrated a boost-glide hypersonic capability.

Maneuverability at high speeds is a small turn, but the speed makes it a large correction. The SR-71 flew at Mach 3 and 100,000 feet, and it was never shot down because it's almost impossible to catch one in a tail-chase. 4000 times they tried to shoot down SR-71, and 4000 times they failed. A 10 degree course adjustment defeats the missile.

When the USSR expanded their radar coverage to provide for better early warning, and developed better anti-aircraft missiles, SR-71 became to risky and we stopped overflights.

Maneuverability at hypersonic speeds is not jinking around and making quick moves- it's a slight turn that makes it really hard to intercept because the distances involved, the interceptor missile runs out of fuel before it can get to the target.
 
Why should we allow Ukraine (or EU) to exist if it doesn't agree with our existence.

Inside the Russian Borders, you do have the right to exist. What you need to do is to garner the same for other countries. Again, how to win the Ukranian war? Go home.
 
Inside the Russian Borders, you do have the right to exist. What you need to do is to garner the same for other countries. Again, how to win the Ukranian war? Go home.
Ukraine is a part of our home. And we are taking it back. And NATO, may be, have right to exists, while their military infrastructure is inside the borders of 1997. Make few steps back - and you'll live. Continue your destructive behaviour - and die.
 
Ukraine is a part of our home. And we are taking it back. And NATO, may be, have right to exists, while their military infrastructure is inside the borders of 1997. Make few steps back - and you'll live. Continue your destructive behaviour - and die.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. You invaded it and we are doing what we need to do to get your sorry butts out lf there. You don't like it, fine.
 
That missile is designed to carry a nuclear payload, and launching one against the US or NATO would be an extremely stupid thing to do, for the reason stated- there is no way for us to know it's not a nuke.

Which is exactly why the entire world gave a huge sigh of relief when in 1987 the INF Treaty was signed.

That was one of the biggest areas of fear in the Cold War, was that both sides had large numbers of deployed ballistic missiles that were both conventionally armed as well as nuclear armed. Systems like the SS-20 and the Pershing II. Which were just two examples of medium range ballistic missiles that both sides had deployed, where some had regular explosives and some had nukes. And in the event one was ever used, there was no way of knowing until it detonated which one was fired.

That was the ultimate "nightmare scenario" of escalation that terrified all of us. That a small conflict somewhere could suddenly turn nuclear because one side launched a conventional MRBM, and the other side in terror launched a nuke. And it held both ways, as it was also believed by both sides that the adversary might launch a couple of conventional weapons, then a decapitation nuclear strike afterwards.

And I for one am glad that the US is not trying to return to building conventionally armed ballistic missiles. By the 1980s they made no sense, and make even less sense now. Most especially in a nuclear armed nation. If Taiwan, South Korea or Poland has a few it is one thing, none of those nations has nukes in the first place so they are all by default conventional. But for Russia, the US or China to use conventionally armed ballistic missiles is the ultimate in stupidity. Because once again, there is absolutely no way to know until it detonates which missile had been fired.

This is one thing many of us have speculated about the Chinese DF-21D, their so-called "Anti-Carrier Missile". Actually knowing things like CEP, it is laughable in the extreme for any nation to launch a conventional ballistic missile, and have it actually strike a moving ship. Even a ship as large as a carrier, as ballistic missiles are simply never intended for use against a moving target. However, claiming to have such a missile returns an old Cold War fear I had thought we had done away with.

Because there actually is one ballistic missile that is a threat to a carrier, and that is one that carries a nuke. It is kind of a thing that accuracy is not important in "horse shoes, hand grenades, and nuclear warfare". Because if the missile has a nuke, it can detonate miles away from the carrier and still either do significant damage or take it completely out of action. And once again, if China was to launch an IRBM at one of our carriers, there is no way to know before it detonates what the warhead is. And does anybody thing the US Navy is going to just sit back and twiddle their thumbs as they wait to see which one it was?

I can only imagine that a lot of the posters in here are kids, who have no actual memories of what things were like before treaties like the INF Treaty were signed. And that seeing things like this have only brought back some of the worst terrors of the Cold War. Ones I had thought were decades dead and buried.
 
Return Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and part of Wyoming to Mexico, and then, may be, we'll talk.

Hell, by that definition, most of Russia once belonged to the Mongols.

So should we then force the Russian government to disband, and put Mongolia back in charge?
 
Read this today on X....
Any military guys here have any comment on this?


So far, almost nobody in the west fully comprehends the Oreshnik weapon system just demonstrated by Russia. Hat tip to Ted Postol, Scott Ritter and Brian Berletic, the only 3 people I've found so far who fully understand this. I've done the math on the kinetic energy of the submunitions (using estimates for mass), and I've studied up on what's publicly known about these weapons so far. My conclusion? NATO is done. The west has no idea what just hit them. Russia's Oreshnik weapon system is checkmate for NATO and the USA. All U.S. aircraft carriers can be destroyed in minutes. All U.S. military bases, all underground bunkers, all ICBM launch sites, naval shipyards, etc., can be destroyed with NON-NUCLEAR kinetic energy via the Oreshnik. There are no active treaties (that I'm aware of) prohibiting this weapon system, and it doesn't destroy surrounding infrastructure or masses of civilians. It is a devastating, unstoppable surgical strike weapon that basically drops metal lightning out of the sky like Thor's Hammer or the comets of God. Nobody has any defense against it, and the range of these weapons, once mounted on intercontinental boosters, is global. The west must now either back off or go nuclear. They will probably choose to go nuclear out of desperation, be warned. Russia has just changed the course of warfare and achieved global dominance. NOBODY in the western press even has a clue. They are too stupid, too woke or too arrogant to realize what just happened. This is like playing chess with Putin and thinkin you might be competitive, then suddenly Putin's queen unleashes a flamethrower across the chess board and roasts all your pieces, setting them on fire. You thought you were playing "chess" but Putin was playing a different game called "flamethrower." It's that big of a deal.
No, lasers can handle these or AI directed surface to air missiles.
 
Read this today on X....
Any military guys here have any comment on this?


So far, almost nobody in the west fully comprehends the Oreshnik weapon system just demonstrated by Russia. Hat tip to Ted Postol, Scott Ritter and Brian Berletic, the only 3 people I've found so far who fully understand this. I've done the math on the kinetic energy of the submunitions (using estimates for mass), and I've studied up on what's publicly known about these weapons so far. My conclusion? NATO is done. The west has no idea what just hit them. Russia's Oreshnik weapon system is checkmate for NATO and the USA. All U.S. aircraft carriers can be destroyed in minutes. All U.S. military bases, all underground bunkers, all ICBM launch sites, naval shipyards, etc., can be destroyed with NON-NUCLEAR kinetic energy via the Oreshnik. There are no active treaties (that I'm aware of) prohibiting this weapon system, and it doesn't destroy surrounding infrastructure or masses of civilians. It is a devastating, unstoppable surgical strike weapon that basically drops metal lightning out of the sky like Thor's Hammer or the comets of God. Nobody has any defense against it, and the range of these weapons, once mounted on intercontinental boosters, is global. The west must now either back off or go nuclear. They will probably choose to go nuclear out of desperation, be warned. Russia has just changed the course of warfare and achieved global dominance. NOBODY in the western press even has a clue. They are too stupid, too woke or too arrogant to realize what just happened. This is like playing chess with Putin and thinkin you might be competitive, then suddenly Putin's queen unleashes a flamethrower across the chess board and roasts all your pieces, setting them on fire. You thought you were playing "chess" but Putin was playing a different game called "flamethrower." It's that big of a deal.
It nothing more then e.g. a Pershing II from 1988 (speed up to Mach 10).
Naturally if the Oreshnik can achieve a speed of e.g. 11 Mach it will reach it's target faster and will be harder to intercept.

The main issue is that an IRBM isn't fired off from a fixed position - but from any location - therefore it's detection and preparation time for an intercept places difficulties, aka an IRBM has a much shorter strike time and the existence of a MIRV warhead (several warhead) with sub-munitions makes an interception aside from the carrier missile itself, even more difficult - or rather impossible.

BTW the Russian Avantgard also known as Yu-74 has a reentry speed close to Mach 30. And presently there is also no system that can intercept a missile - resp. it's hyper-sonic reentry vehicle coming in at such a speed having additionally the ability to maneuver and operate at lower altitudes and being MIRV capable.

Anyway Russia and the USA are nowhere near the capabilities already existing by China - and even a Chinese DF-ZF in conjunction with it's carrier the DF-17 - flies "only" at around Mach 5 (its HGV up to Mach 10 and maneuverable) and is therefore basically unstoppable. Whilst China is already fielding them since latest 2020 - the US has even to come up with one.

Present Western interceptor systems are based onto trajectory intercept - classic ICBM's - or IRBM's carrier missiles on a trajectory path - the e.g. US AN/TPY-2 t system would lets say "face a hard time" to "predict" a HGV's path. Same goes therefore for the THAAD system.

Leaves the Aegis SBT system - who's factual ability in that regard can't be verified either.

The decisive issue in this context is = practical occurrence contra theory

1. range aka flight time of a hyper-sonic craft - thus preparation time to detect and intercept
2. No. of incoming hyper-sonic missiles
3. No. of available interceptor missiles such as e.g. the SM-6
 
AI directed surface to air missiles.

Oh holy hell.

AI can't even direct a car across town, or create an image with the right number of fingers on a hand. And you think it is a magical solution for intercepting missiles? Care to explain exactly how an "AI Missile Intercept" would be magically different than a conventional missile intercept?

This is why I absolutely laugh at a great many people today. They quite literally hear some kind of buzz-word, and suddenly it becomes the solution to everything. "Hypersonic", "AI", "Droned", "Cloud Computing", it is just a never-ending case of people learning some new buzz word, and just proclaiming it is the solution to everything. Of course, they can never explain why that is exactly, or how to overcome the multiple challenges. All they know is the Buzz Word is the solution to everything.

Whenever I hear or read something like this, I immediately think of a 1953 movie. Where the villain is defeated by a device that is "Atomic".



And not unlike another media property featuring a boy named Bart. Where a buzz word was proposed as the solution to all their problems.



So please explain to us exactly how "AI Surface to Air Missiles" would differ from the ones we are using today/
 
Ukraine is a part of our home
only in your 🇷🇺 wet dreams ivan only

ivan.png



the reality :

 
Oh holy hell.

AI can't even direct a car across town, or create an image with the right number of fingers on a hand. And you think it is a magical solution for intercepting missiles? Care to explain exactly how an "AI Missile Intercept" would be magically different than a conventional missile intercept?

This is why I absolutely laugh at a great many people today. They quite literally hear some kind of buzz-word, and suddenly it becomes the solution to everything. "Hypersonic", "AI", "Droned", "Cloud Computing", it is just a never-ending case of people learning some new buzz word, and just proclaiming it is the solution to everything. Of course, they can never explain why that is exactly, or how to overcome the multiple challenges. All they know is the Buzz Word is the solution to everything.

Whenever I hear or read something like this, I immediately think of a 1953 movie. Where the villain is defeated by a device that is "Atomic".



And not unlike another media property featuring a boy named Bart. Where a buzz word was proposed as the solution to all their problems.



So please explain to us exactly how "AI Surface to Air Missiles" would differ from the ones we are using today/

Presumably that would be in the guidance system no? Less human input and more high speed computational direction since an intercept is really just a best guess based on the trajectory info of the tracked incoming projectile.
The intercept point is a prediction that the object will be at a certain point at a certain time. One would assume that as AI technologies begin to integrate into these systems that decisions will be made faster and responses to change will be more accurate than the human input.
 
Presumably that would be in the guidance system no? Less human input and more high speed computational direction since an intercept is really just a best guess based on the trajectory info of the tracked incoming projectile.

There is little to no actual "human input" in those systems. In essence, the operator in the van selects the target and the missile to fire, and the computer does the rest based purely on math. Inbound Object at X speed will be at location Y in ZZZ seconds, so missile A is fired to reach that point BBB seconds before.

The process is entirely automated, and takes generally 10-20 seconds or less from the press of the LAUNCH button to the actual intercept (the absolute longest time possible with a PATRIOT missile is just a hair over 1 minute - 60 miles at 3,500 mph). Absolutely nothing has been done by the operator, there really is nothing to be done by the operator. They simply designate which inbound target is to be intercepted, and select which missile is to be fired against it from which launcher. This is not Missile Command, where they steer anything, the process is entirely automated because no human can possibly control intercept missiles at over 3,500 mph.

yZG6Bk.gif


Not sure if you actually know how Air Defense systems work. To be honest, I can't think of anything other than MANPAD or the Russian ZU series that are actually "manually aimed and operated" in the modern era. But in all missile based systems short of MANPAD (and the variants like AVENGER which is literally "MANPAD on a truck"), everything is 100% handled by the computers. And AI would be a detriment, as there is absolutely nothing "fuzzy" in intercepting inbound missiles or aircraft. Physics dictates where they will be at a set time, and the outbound missile is aimed to be in that location when it gets there.

If you know American Football, it is like a quarterback throwing to a receiver. They know when the player will be in 3 seconds based on their speed and trajectory, so throw the ball to that location. And quite literally, the football intercepts the receiver if everything goes as it should. And when talking about intercepting missiles, that is all it can be. As the inbound missile is traveling at around MACH 5, the outbound missile is traveling at about MACH 2. There is absolutely nothing a human can do when it comes to objects traveling at speeds like that.
 
Yes I already knew most of that and I assumed that the targeting was computer driven.
Nothing is fuzzy until it becomes fuzzy no?

Your assuming a steady state and a single target. It doesn't do much for missiles that change speeds, change trajectory and blossom into multiple warheads however. I also hear that a well planned attack includes a dozen or so dummies.

End point.... This is not a debate about the finer points of logistical performance. This is about Russia responded with something that startled Ukraine....it was not intercepted....and they seem to have stopped all talk of hitting Russia with any other long range attacks...at least I haven't been able to find any info to that effect.

So back to the original point....what good did this permission to strike bestow if any? Seems like a dead end escalation.
 
And to add a bit more, this is how a PATRIOT battery operates.

In that Battery, you will have one control van and RADAR, and six launchers. Generally 1 PAC-3 Launcher with 4 PAC-3 canisters of 4 missiles per canister, and 5 PAC-2 Launchers with 4 canisters of 1 missile per canister. And on the PAC-2 Launchers, they will actually have a mix of different missiles. GEM+, GEM/T and GEM/C. Each missile is designed for a specific threat, so the operator will select the missile based on the specific threat. And they will actually launch 2 missiles for each inbound target, from two different Launchers. So for an inbound fighter or cruise missile, that may be a GEM+ from Launcher 1, and a GEM/C from Launcher 3. Or for an inbound ballistic missile, a PAC-3 from Launcher 6 and a GEM/T from Launcher 2.

That is why we joke when people get the numbers wrong in say 1991 or 2003. They see a lot more missiles fired than the number of intercepts, not realizing that we fire two missiles at every threat. So for a 100% kill rate (which was achieved in 2003), we actually only have a 50% hit rate. One missile hit the target, the other hit nothing and was self destructed (in every case in 2003 the first missile fired hit, the second fired 2-3 seconds later self destructed).

And yes, they can track and direct over 100 outbound missiles at the same time. In theory, the maximum capability of the system is 8 PAC-3 launchers, that is 128 missiles per RADAR-Van set. And if a battery happened to have the new MSE launchers, that is 16 missiles per launcher. So in a Battery of 6 MSE Launchers, that is 96 missiles (once again 128 if they had 8 launchers). But the loadout has been improved in MSE, as a single launcher can now mix and match the PAC-3 and GEM missiles, where as before it was PAC-3 or GEM.

And when originally designed, it was intended to operate with 8 Launchers per Battery. This was lowered to 6 per Battery when it was deployed, but it does still have the capability of 8 Launchers per Battery. And in exercises we have done that, if a RADAR goes down reallocate the extra launchers to operate from the RADAR of a different Battery (they can actually take commands from RADAR systems located several miles away remotely).

One of the interesting things in this war was seeing for the first time a PATRIOT Battery "Salvo Firing". That is something the US has never had to do, as the only threats they ever faced were 1 or 2 missiles at once from Iraq.



Notice in the first 50 seconds of that video, you can see exactly what I was talking about. At the start, the missiles leaving 1-2 seconds apart. From two different launchers but clearly at the same target. And as the firing intensifies, more and more missiles being launched from different launchers and aiming at different targets. At least 19 missiles being fired in under a minute. Each one of those missiles being guided by the same RADAR and control van. That is actually the closest I have ever seen to some of the "nightmare scenarios" we trained against if say Iran did such a "missile storm" launch against our bases.

One thing about the Ukraine war, it has given us some real good feedback as that is a situation the US has simply never had to face. And one of the reasons the MSE is being fast tracked into distribution to every PATRIOT Battery in the Army.

But here is the downside we all realize in these kinds of scenarios. When we set up, we will have a "defended asset". That may be the CP and a nearby hospital. Or the capitol of a host nation. Or the runway, ammo depot and barracks at an air base. But we are limited in the number of missiles we have, so if it is outside that defended asset, it kinds sucks but we just can't do anything about it. In such a scenario, we have no choice but to watch on the screens as a missile impacts say a civilian area, we have to save our missiles in order to defend our actual defended asset. This is why in cases like this you will still see impacts. The RADAR and system can predict the impact point, and if it's outside of our defended area we simply have to let it hit. So that we can save our missiles for actually protecting our defended asset.

This was also seen in Israel many times, where they simply can't shoot at every inbound target because they have to use "triage" and hit the most important threats. Because if they tried to hit every single target, they may run out of interceptors before the enemy runs out of missiles to shoot.

It absolutely 100% sucks, but that is simply how it is. We see XX number of inbound missiles, and a launcher is assigned to protect a single location. They simply can't fire at those others impacting nearby, as they have a job to protect something specific and just can't use them up defending something else.
 
It doesn't do much for missiles that change speeds, change trajectory and blossom into multiple warheads however. I also hear that a well planned attack includes a dozen or so dummies.

OK, this is something completely different.

First of all, ballistic missiles do not "change speeds and change trajectories". They can't, physics simply does not allow it. And this all goes right back to what I had been saying earlier, different air defense systems are designed for different threats.

Let me break them down a bit here, see if this makes sense. And this is for missile defense not aircraft.

Glossary first: SRBM is Short Range Ballistic Missile, MRBM is Medium Range Ballistic Missile, IRBM is Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile, ICBM is Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Not discussed here, ALBM is Air Launched Ballistic Missile (Kinzhal). ABT is "Air Breathing Threat", like a cruise missile.

First of all, every single "Ballistic Missile" has a set trajectory, fixed at launch by physics. They have no control surfaces, other than the tail fins for small corrections in the terminal phase (SRBM-MRBM). They are not aircraft, there are no radical changes in direction. They can steer the impact point by maybe a kilometer or so, nothing more. 100% of their terminal impact point was set by physics at launch, just as with a bullet when fired by a gun (or a round when fired by artillery).

PATRIOT is for SRBM and MRBM. Short and medium range missiles. A single missile, with a single warhead permanently attached as a single unit. There are no "dummy warheads". It is a one piece missile and warhead, there is no "warhead ejection" in it that allows the warhead to fall free. Think of the SCUD from Iraq.

Then you have IRBM and ICBM. Now this is a completely different animal, and PATRIOT is simply not intended to hit a threat like that. Period. In theory they can hit the warhead itself, but that is like the "last act of defiance" cartoon of the mouse flipping off the hawk as it stoops. IRBMs and ICBMs are intended to operate in a MIRV configuration, and eject multiple warheads. And we have missiles that are designed to intercept those, but it is not PATRIOT.

And in those cases, we have THAAD, the Navy's SM series, and GBI. And those operate not by hitting the warheads themselves, but by hitting the missile before it ejects their warheads. It does not matter how many decoys and warheads a missile has, if it is intercepted before they are ejected.

This is why I kept talking earlier about the differences between SRBM, MRBM, and IRBM/ICBM. Each and every one of those operate very differently. And you need to intercept them in different ways. Specifically, in different stages of their flight. PATRIOT simply does not work against the latter two, the range is too short and it would hit too late in their trajectory. THAAD is intended for the latter threats to intercept right as it is about to MIRV, so has a good chance of intercept. SM and GBI are intended to hit it long before it MIRVs, when it is still a single unit therefore destroying it long before it gets to the target.

This is not a criticism, I realize that most people really do not know the differences between the various missiles and interceptors, let alone what works against what and in what phase of flight. Which is why I spend time trying to be specific in regards to the actual missiles themselves. Most people would have no idea what the difference is between an MRBM (Pershing II) and an IRBM (Oreshnik). But to me, the difference is like night and day. Almost everything about them is so different, that to me it is like talking about a Yugo and a long distance passenger bus.

Now, when it comes to missiles that are "maneuverable", that is actually not a ballistic missile at all, but an ABT. Yes, an ABT can indeed change speeds and change courses. Of course, they are also generally aircraft, simply stupid suicide aircraft. And they have wings and other control surfaces along with an active engine that allows them to do such things. The speed of a ballistic missile was locked in when it was launched, set by altitude, angle of flight and speed. And not a damned thing is going to change that until it impacts. But an ABT (TOMAHAWK) has a jet engine and wings, and in theory can be programmed before launch to speed up or slow down. Or to make turns and changes in direction, just like any other aircraft. A ballistic missile? You can change the speed and direction about as easily as you can change the speed and direction of a rock you throw up in the air. Physics and gravity have already determined where it is going to hit, based on the speed and angle you threw it in. The small tail fins can make a minor change, but that is all. It is not going to be zipping back and forth like a fighter jet.

Scud-B_4big.jpg


There are the tailfins of a SCUD. How much "bite" on the air do you think they get at MACH 5? Especially as at that point, it is entirely in freefall and is under no power at all. Those fins are only good for absolutely minor changes, as in a kilometer or so on an SRBM-MRBM. Between hitting one side of a sports stadium as opposed to the other side of a sports stadium. Not in changing the trajectory to impact a location 20 miles away.
 
Yes I already knew most of that and I assumed that the targeting was computer driven.
Nothing is fuzzy until it becomes fuzzy no?

Your assuming a steady state and a single target. It doesn't do much for missiles that change speeds, change trajectory and blossom into multiple warheads however. I also hear that a well planned attack includes a dozen or so dummies.

End point.... This is not a debate about the finer points of logistical performance. This is about Russia responded with something that startled Ukraine....it was not intercepted....and they seem to have stopped all talk of hitting Russia with any other long range attacks...at least I haven't been able to find any info to that effect.

So back to the original point....what good did this permission to strike bestow if any? Seems like a dead end escalation.

Russia can barely launch real missiles, let alone multiple decoys.
 
Russia can barely launch real missiles, let alone multiple decoys.

Actually, they can and still are. However, as can be seen in the recent Oreshnik launch and their use of Kinzhal, they have been nowhere near as effective as they thought.

This is actually something the US realized decades ago, that conventional ballistic missiles were simply not as effective as many thought they would be. The last ones we actually deployed for battlefield use was the Pershing II way back in 1973. An MRBM, that in the event the balloon ever went up with the Warsaw Pact was primarily going to be used against our own assets. Specifically things like bridges, in order to slow down the attackers and deny their use as we pull out. It was not intended to actually use them against the attacking forces themselves, but to slow them down by destroying infrastructure. Then to destroy anything we have to leave behind as we withdraw, like fuel and ammo depots so they can not be used against us.

And the Pershing II never had a conventional warhead, but a small 5-80kt nuclear warhead. Both the Pershing I and II could carry a small conventional warhead, but they were never deployed with one.

Because the simple fact is, other than as weapons with nukes, ballistic missiles are simply not very effective. They are incredibly expensive in resources and technology, and carry relatively small conventional warheads (about 1 ton). In comparison, a single Su-34 fighter can carry from 13-15 tons of bombs (an actual Tu-160 bomber has a capacity just under 50 tons). So to replace the explosive delivery capability of a single fighter jet, one would need to launch over a dozen SRBM/MRBMs (or 49 to replace a single Tu-160).

This is something the US realized very early, so pretty much abandoned the very idea of conventionally armed ballistic missiles. They simply made no sense when it comes to resources expended to put explosives on a target.

Kinda like the ALBM. That was also something the US was playing around with in the 1950s, And actually deployed briefly in the very early 1960s, then abandoned because they realized ultimately it was a rather silly weapon system that had no real advantage.

However, Russia does not think the same way. And seem to have a thing for silly high-tech solutions to simple problems.
 

Forum List

Back
Top